Joe Dirtbag

The always prolific Glen Greenwald has narrowed his sights on one of PatRoW’s favorite targets – “Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman. At the center of Greenwald’s fury is a Lieberman Op-Ed that appeared in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, and how the senator’s new stance seems to stand in direct conflict with the one he espoused in the Journal fifteen months ago.

…whereas Lieberman is claiming now that everything is different today because we had no real strategy before for ensuring security, it was Lieberman himself who promised Americans in 2005 that we did have exactly such a strategy and that it was working so well that "we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007."

…On what conceivable basis is Joe Lieberman accorded even the most minimal respect or credibility? He is obviously a person who will say anything at any time in order to defend this war, and, now that everything he said in the past is revealed to be completely false, he does not have even an iota of integrity or honesty to admit any of that. Instead, he stands up and pretends that he never said any of those things -- he actually pretends that he knew all along that our military strategy was wrong -- and simply makes the same promises and commitments as he has been making all along with a sense of entitlement that he has credibility on these matters and should be listened to.

Now you may be asking – what good does it serve to continually point out Lieberman’s hypocrisy and dishonesty? And if you are asking that question…you don’t know me very well.

Joe Lieberman continues to spew lies and convenient mistruths, and continues to caucus with congressional Democrats while he sabotages the Party’s platform in the media and Senate floor. Every time he talks about the war, the man insults the intelligence of the American public (hey – that’s my job!) and betrays our troops in Iraq. But for the capper, Greenwald says it best:

Worse still, people like Joe Lieberman attempted -- and are still attempting -- to bully and stigmatize those who were trying to alert Americans of the reality of what was going on in Iraq by depicting anyone who challenges the rosy-eyed deceit of the President and Lieberman as the ones who actually bear responsibility for the failures in Iraq, even as subversive and traitorous.

Calling Lieberman a douchebag no longer seems strong enough, and “Interloper Enabler” has potential, but is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe there’s a simpler word: responsible. Surely he shares blame with a stable full of culpable fucks (conveniently, most of them work together at the White House), but Joe Lieberman is responsible for our Iraq clusterfuck quagmire, he is responsible for America’s rapidly vanishing esteem in the global community and he is responsible every time another American soldier comes home in a box.

Independent Democrat or Insincere Douchebag?

Uh oh – we're picking up Joe-mentum again.

Joe Lieberman, the selfish, grandstanding, traitorous senator from Connecticut, has taken a perilous stance defending the Interloper's Iraq surge plan – a plan that isn't being so vociferously defended in the president's own party.

One has to wonder if the White House is blackmailing him with photos that would make Mark Foley blush, because Lieberman' support of the troop surge counters both the insight of our most experienced military professionals and the will of the American people. And he's so smug about it to boot!

Lieberman appears desperate to shed his former blue ties. A profile in Salon today reveals that:

After the election, Lieberman advertised himself as the least reliable member of the Democratic caucus by insisting that he be listed by the secretary of the Senate as an "Independent Democrat." Last week, in a development noted by few, Lieberman's office admitted to Congressional Quarterly that the whole I.D. thing seemed not to be catching on, and that, if Lieberman had to choose one or the other, he'd rather be known as an Independent than as a Democrat.

C.Q., at least, reported that it is going to consider Lieberman an Independent from now on: "With Lieberman's latest shift, the Senate now has 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats…"

Gee, Lieberman is showing less than enthusiastic allegiance for the Democratic Party. Who would have guessed it? Oh yeah – me!

He doesn't want us, and we only tolerate him to keep up the appearance of a Senate majority. While the dysfunctional relationship between Lieberman and his supposed party can continue, shouldn't we all be asking "why" in our loudest, outside voices? Mr. Senator – why did you run for reelection on a platform that stated "troop reduction" as an immediate goal, yet turn around at betray that sentiment less than two months later? Why did you claim outrage at the administration's handling of post-Katrina affairs, only to slink away from the issue once you retained your seat?

And why, Joe, why should we label you with anything other than the tag that most loudly speaks every time you open your mouth? For those of you still trying to do the math, it rhymes with "ducking fooshbag".

Un-fucking-believable

For the most part, I have avoided posting about the Iraq War, as no-win situations offer little ground for know-it-alls like me to sound smart and offer a reality check. Iraq is a depressing situation with no real solution that will continue to worsen. How/when/why will our troops get out? How can I get passionate about an answer when there are only questions?

On Wednesday, the Interloper interrupted my primetime TV viewing schedule to announce he was augmenting (apparently, in an image is everything administration, this is different than an "escalation") troop levels by 21,000. In their testimonies in front of both House and Senate committees Thursday, Secretary of State Condi Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were greeted by bipartisan opposition to the president's plan. That's right – questions about strategy and sincerity were voiced from both sides of the aisle, as some of the administration's most loyal congressional lackeys have begun to eat crow and distance themselves from Dubya's Folly.

Happily, however, for the Wonderful Wizard of the White House, one man had the courage to applaud the president's plan: you guessed it – Democratic (ahem) Senator Joe Lieberman!

In a statement released by his office, Joe Lieberman wraps his arms around the president's "correct and courageous" new strategy. "I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman says. He says that Bush has offered up "a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis."

I had a few words about Lieberman this fall after he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, then selfishly ran and won as an independent. I will admit I was wrong about one thing – he has chosen to caucus with the Democrats and seems willing to support the Party's main objectives. Small miracles, right?

But the fucking balls on this prick! How can any Democrat, any elected official, any sane person, still have such enthusiastic support for Dubya's dumbass plan? More than just an embarrassment to his party, Lieberman is in embarrassment to the human race; running onto a sinking ship while even the dirtiest rats escape is not as heroic as Joe would have us believe – it's a disgusting betrayal of his constituency and a treasonous insult to his office, party and nation.

Fun with conspiracy theories

When South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson suffered what was first reported as a stroke this week, the news sent ripples of fear down the spines of Democrats everywhere…and not just because they liked Johnson and were worried about his health. You see, if a Senator dies in office, a replacement may be named by his state's governor. The governor could choose the candidate of his preference, regardless of political party.

Tim Johnson is a Democrat and South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds is a Republican. You see why there was cause for alarm; assuming Rounds would appoint a Republican senator, the Democrats' 51-49 Senate advantage would become a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney providing the tie-breaker for the GOP.

And yet, Johnson's "intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation" doesn't appear to be life threatening, and after successful brain surgery, he is said to be "appropriately responsive to both voice and touch". So why are Dems still sweating their slim majority? Old fears about the treasonous intentions of one of their own…

That's right, folks – it's time for another Joe Lieberman conspiracy theory!

Perhaps more realistic than the talk about Hillary's nefarious scheming in Iowa, there are new grumblings that the Connecticut senator would consider leaving Congress if offered the job of US Ambassador to the United Nations. The reasons to take the position (perks like "a big apartment in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, a chance to live in Manhattan rather than Washington and a turn on the world stage in the tradition of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan") hardly match reasons for declining (the Senate is somewhat prestigious as well), and yet, who can claim to understand a man who claims he has "Joe-mentum" at the end of a losing campaign?

Of course, if Lieberman were to leave office, the South Dakota scenario would come back into play. Connecticut's Republican governor, Jodi Rell, would be allowed to name a replacement. Does anybody else smell a 50-50 split?

And while the post itself would be a draw (last December, it was reported that Bush had offered the job to Lieberman, who thought about it for a week before saying no), the less obvious reasons may make the job so tempting. Perhaps some GOP duplicity (who saw that coming?) could wrest away Democratic majority by playing to Lieberman's ego:

…if the Republicans really want to steal the Senate back before the Democrats take over, they can certainly whisper tempting blandishments into [Lieberman's] ear. How about a nice, million-dollar job with, for instance, the Carlyle Group?

Or maybe even the ego-boosting prospect of another vice-presidential nomination in 2008 -- this time on a "bipartisan" ticket with friend and fellow hawk John McCain?

And for an egotistic, self-serving, ass-kissing, aisle-crossing douchebag like Joe Lieberman, a few delicate strokes (to his ego – get your head out of the gutter) may be all it takes to sell out the Democratic Party one last time.

Captain Chutzpah and his Cunt-head Crony

You know, I sort of got swept up by the "netroots" campaign against Joe Lieberman, a candidate for whom I had never before had anything but modest respect. Yet the more I read, the more determined I become that he does not retain his Senate seat…and the more outraged I am that our party actually nominated him as our vice presidential candidate.

Drawing strength from a new poll that gave Lieberman a 53-41-4% edge in a three-way race with Democrat Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger, the incumbent tried to play on the racism of prospective voters:

The Lieberman campaign is trying to frighten white voters in Connecticut -- and Democrats in Washington -- by reminding them over and over again that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson support Lamont. This week, the senator's aides told the New York Times that playing the two African-American preachers off against Lamont will enhance Lieberman's appeal on an independent ballot line. "Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he's surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party," said Dan Gerstein, the Lieberman campaign's communications director.

It is true that Sharpton and Jackson are notorious publicity whores, have stuck their feet in their respective mouths countless times, and have suddenly made themselves BFF with Lamont. Yet Lieberman's audacity in calling out Lamont reeks of hypocrisy when you look at some of the polarizing figures with whom he's jumped in the sack.

Few prominent national figures have a lower approval rating than Lieberman's crush, The Interloper…except perhaps Louis Farrakhan. That's right, the Senator has gone on record saying positive things about the racist leader of the Nation of Islam – a man whose anti-Semitism makes Jackson and Sharpton look only a bit meshugina.

…while campaigning as Al Gore's running mate, [Lieberman] fulsomely praised Farrakhan on a national radio program. During an interview with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks on Sept. 26, 2000, Lieberman…[was] asked about Farrakan's caustic response to his nomination on the Democratic ticket, which included questioning his "dual loyalty" to Israel and the United States, Lieberman responded with a meek appeal for mutual understanding.

"Look, Minister Farrakhan has said a few things, including earlier in the campaign, that were just not informed… But, you know, I have respect for him and I have respect for the Muslim community generally." … Moreover, Lieberman added, "I have respect for him ... I admire what Minister Farrakhan is doing."

Maybe I'm naïve, but I think "admiring" someone who called Jews "bloodsuckers" seems a lot worse than cozying up to someone who called New York "Hymie Town". But really, despite Lieberman's recent criticism, are Sharpton and Jackson all that terrible? Let's ask…Joe Lieberman:

Not so long ago, he liked to talk about his warm conversation with Jackson on the day that he became a major party's first Jewish vice presidential nominee, his eyes moist and his voice emotional as he recalled Jackson saying "something that went to my heart" about breaking down barriers for everyone. Not so long ago, he called Sharpton his "dear friend" and "brother" during the Democratic presidential primary debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News.

The self-serving asscunt can't keep his story straight and is willing to sacrifice his party and his religion to advance a flailing political career. Not only does Joe Lieberman represent a lot of what's wrong with the American political system, he represents a lot of what's wrong with humanity. Oy!

I know you are but what am I?

So it turns out that not only am I not a bad Jew for opposing Joe Lieberman, but through sheer hubris and hypocrisy, he may have violated more Talmudic law than I did when I married a shiksa.

Orthodox Jew Stephen Hirsch examines "Reb Yosef" and his famous Senate floor rebuke of Bill Clinton's adultery. The Reader's Digest version? Captain Chutzpah is a self-serving and superiority-complexed boob. That's right – a boob.

If you're keeping score at home, that means I'm an anti-anti-Semite, which, if I've learned anything from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Bogus Journey, means I'm very much pro-Semite.

That, and Wyld Stallions rule.

For the Record

I am Jewish and (if I were registered to vote in Connecticut, would have) voted against Joe Lieberman. Can we stop this anti- Semitic shit already?

Sometimes, even us Jews can be douchebags…isn't that enough?

What about four out of five Democrats across the country declaring happiness with Lieberman's defeat? Did you notice that nearly every prominent Democrat has already vocally supported Lamont and/or urged Lieberman to kill his Independent candidacy? What do these facts mean?

Oh yeah, I forgot – we all hate the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense…

Joe Must Go

Joe's out; Ned's in. Can you believe I actually waited two days to post something about this? I mean, I have mentioned the Lieberman-Lamont primary from time to time to time.

In a travashamockery of a concession speech, Lieberman positioned himself as a self-serving jackass poised to hinder any longshot Democrats have of recapturing the Senate this November. He vowed to run as an independent, which will have a few major ramifications: 1) he could draw enough votes from middle-of-the-road voters to defeat both the Democrat or Republican challengers; 2) he could siphon off enough Democratic votes that the Republican wins; or 3) he WILL force the DNC to devote resources to one of the bluest of states in order to ensure a Lamont victory and the destruction of scenarios 1 and 2. Put it in perspective, will you War Room?

Lieberman has turned himself into the most vivid symbol of the insular, arrogant, corrupt and power-desperate Washington establishment, the sheer cravenness and corruption of which are what catalyzed the campaign against him in the first place.

Those who compose that entrenched Beltway power establishment -- the endlessly reelected political officials, the hordes of consultants and lobbyists who feed off and control them, and the pampered, self-loving "journalists" who enable it all -- are characterized by a single-minded quest to perpetuate their own power, flavored by a thinly masked contempt for the masses on whose behalf this system ostensibly plods along. Lieberman's conduct last night was a perfect textbook for all of those afflictions.

Well done, douchebag. Great Democrat you turned out to be. And the fact that he is so quick to declare a political disaster is particularly telling, as Joan Walsh writes " The notion that Lamont supporters are somehow "destroying the center" or killing bipartisanism is fiction; George W. Bush did that." And now Lieberman has to deal with the consequences of getting in bed with the devil and sucking him off.

Hey Joe-mo – you still have a little Dubya seed in your hair. Disappear already, will ya?

Chicken or the Egg?

Colin McEnroe writes an interesting piece that touches on a few issues about which I have a deep interest, namely living wills, separation of church and state, political hypocrisy, and, of course, the Joe Lieberman-Ned Lamont Senate race. Here's a telling passage:

In 1979 … the Connecticut state Senate took up, as it did every year, a bill that would have allowed people to create living wills so that their families would know their wishes as they lay dying.

The lobbying arm of the Catholic Church fought and beat the bill every year. During the long-winded 1979 debate, as Joe Lieberman sat listening to a Catholic colleague denounce the bill as "man playing God," a 25-year-old newspaper reporter plopped down in a chair next to him.

"Why does it always break down that way?" the reporter whispered. "The more conservative argument always invokes God. The liberals always insist that God has no place in a debate in an American state legislature …Why doesn't somebody make the argument that medical science has exceeded the will of God by keeping people alive when they're supposed to be dead? Why not suggest that living wills represent a kind of restoration, allowing people to live in communion with the will of their Maker?"

At that, Lieberman fixed the reporter with a serious look and said, "That's the most interesting thing anybody has said to me all session."

The reporter brightened at such praise, only to watch in disappointment as Lieberman voted against the bill, which failed again.

I was that young reporter. Call it the beginning of my education about Joe Lieberman. Sometimes what he says has nothing to do with how he'll vote.

I don't know how many PatRoW readers actually care about the Connecticut race, especially since the Nutmeg State is unlikely to elect a Republican or Independent (Lieberman?) candidate. Also, Stat Counter tells me that I have 6 times as many readers in Norway as I do in Connecticut (maybe I should do some Scandinavian homework and come up with a witty quip about King Harald V or call Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg a douchebag. Special thanks to the CIA for the intel).

But here's the thing (and please read McEnroe's piece to get the full picture), why do politicians – not just Lieberman, mind you – feel the need to say one thing and do another? Why is it considered par for the political course to compromise one's ideals or sacrifice the consensus of the electorate when it is convenient to do so?

Joe Lieberman actively and loudly supported Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination, then voted against it when it became clear his vote would not matter; he " collaborated with Sen. Jesse Helms on a measure that would have stripped federal funding from public schools that counseled suicidal gay teens that their lifestyle was OK"; he has played footsie with Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity, and famously had a public love affair with our dimwitted president.

In an article criticizing liberals who attack Lieberman for not, as FDR would have endorsed, "putting first things first" and focusing efforts on vulnerable Republican seats before cannibalizing ineffective Democrats, Jonathan Alter nonetheless has this to say:

…The fury directed at [Lieberman] by many Democrats is rooted… in his annoying habit of hedging his bets, as reflected in his risk-averse insistence that if he loses the primary, he'll run as an independent. His campaign poster when he ran for high-school class president featured him crouched on his parents' roof under the line: VOTE OR I'LL JUMP. The charm of that has worn off.

I agree; Lieberman's steadfast support for Dubya's Folly (©2006 Patience and the Reign of Witches) may be the issue that actually gets him run out of office, but it only the latest in a series of capitulations he has made to both the war-mongering and Christian conservative wings of the Republican Party. And yet, by nearly any measuring stick, he has had an incredibly successful political career (as a Democrat, no less) and fairly won an election that should have awarded him the second-highest American political office. And yet, what is it about politics that brings out the best in idealists and moralists alike, yet rewards politicians who sell us all down the river?

A colleague of mine, when asked that very question, thought I missed the point:

The thing that's missing is money. MONEY. I don't know where Joe's money comes from, but if you're going to bring up the chicken and the egg and rewarding liars and deceivers, I put it squarely on money buying election victories, lazy media enabling the corruption by allowing it to continue (and focus on the "horserace" instead of issues which could bring the hypocrisy to light) and ending (beginning?) with the hypocritical votes that are required to earn the money.

Maybe that's part of the truth, although I presume that the full answer is closely related to the fact that as splintered as our country's political landscape may be, the one thing that unites all of us – blue and red staters, evangelical and atheist, hawk and dove, Mayflower material or first-generation – is the near universal distrust and growing distain for the officials that are supposed to represent our interests in public office. I suppose a better question is whether the loathsome nature of the political landscape corrupts our best and brightest elected officials, or whether our loathsome politicians are responsible for the decay in the fabric of American Democracy.

Isn’t it Joe-ronic, don’t you think?

I recently posted about Joe Lieberman's eerily similar verbiage to a certain Pennsylvania Avenue douchebag, but now get this – Lieberman is running a TV ad criticizing his primary opponent for having a platform "short on ideas and long on anti-Lieberman sentiment" . What's wrong with that, you ask? Nothing, except that his proof is a lie more transparent than a Tahitian lagoon:

Lieberman's new TV ad's... evidence [is] a bumper sticker that says "No More Joe." The problem? As Factcheck.org reports, the Lamont campaign hasn't distributed any such bumper sticker, nor does it own the inactive Web site -- nomorejoe.com -- shown on the sticker in Lieberman's ad. "Overall, the Lieberman campaign is well within its rights to argue that Lamont's campaign lacks a positive message and is simply 'anti-Lieberman,'" Factcheck says. "But creating false campaign material and passing it off as authentic? That seems at odds with the ad's praise of Lieberman's 'principles.'"

George W. Lieberman still leads in Connecticut's senatorial polls, but the numbers can (and hopefully will) soon change unless Joe hires himself some fact-checkers. Really, most college students will work for less than the diminutive minimum wage your GOP butt buddies refuse to raise.

Highway to the Douchebag Zone

"Democratic" Senator Joe Lieberman debated his primary opponent last night at the same time CNN aired an interview Dubya and the missus did with Larry King. Salon asks an important question – can anyone tell the two douchebags apart? Let's look at some of their quotes:

1. "The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision and I'm absolutely convinced it was."

2. "And I believe it was the right thing for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein."

3. "Things don't happen quickly when it comes to helping a nation go from a tyranny to a democracy. But the Iraqi people were given a chance to vote and they did overwhelmingly. And now we're working with a new unity government, to help succeed.

4. "The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress."

5. "I'd rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular."

6. "And I have asked [the people] to respect me for having the guts to take an unpopular political position."

7. "We will succeed in Iraq, unless we decide to quit."

8. " . . . we have a choice. And that choice is between helping the Iraqis achieve a free and independent Iraq or abandoning them and letting the terrorists take over."

So which one is George Bush, and which one is the one who proclaims himself "not George Bush"? The Republican president is responsible for statements 1, 3, 5 and 7. The Democrat senator -- for now -- can take credit for 2, 4, 6 and 8.

At least Lieberman didn't come out for the debate dressed in a flight suit and declaring "mission accomplished"…but why do I still get the feeling that he fashions himself Iceman to Dubya's Maverick?

Lieberman: You can be my wingman anytime, Georgie.

Bush: Bullshit! You can be mine, Joey.

Lieberman: Let's make out.

Bush: OK. Want a reach-around?

What? Am I the only one who saw Brokeback Squadron?